Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 152
  1. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    You really think that the US military has worked "for the abolition or reduction of standing armies"? Well, I guess for abolishing other armies by killing them, but I doubt that the Nobel people would really take that into account.
    I think there's been no more powerful and effective force for peace in th the twentieth Century. Wouldn't you agree?
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I think there's been no more powerful and effective force for peace in th the twentieth Century. Wouldn't you agree?
    That's a very American-centric view, but the Nobel isn't an American prize. The Nobel promotes diplomatic, rather than military, solutions. Our military has been an effective force for engaging in war, but recognizing any fighting force with the Nobel Peace Prize is silly.

    You don't recognize a standing army as "working for the abolishment of standing armies". It may feel patriotic, but it's not even close to the Nobel standard.

    <insert "you hate our military" / you're unAmerican" retort here>
    Last edited by Bujin; 10/10/2009 at 02:14 PM.
  3. #63  
    Everyone that is pi$$ed off that he won the Nobel Peace Prize are really going to be ticked when he gets the Super Bowl MVP.
  4. #64  
    lmao
  5. supaumar's Avatar
    Posts
    28 Posts
    Global Posts
    34 Global Posts
    #65  
    Coop>Mike
  6. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    That's a very American-centric view, but the Nobel isn't an American prize. The Nobel promotes diplomatic, rather than military, solutions. Our military has been an effective force for engaging in war, but recognizing any fighting force with the Nobel Peace Prize is silly.

    You don't recognize a standing army as "working for the abolishment of standing armies". It may feel patriotic, but it's not even close to the Nobel standard.

    <insert "you hate our military" / you're unAmerican" retort here>
    And the UN peacekeeping forces? Fancy euphemistic name aside_ they are a fighting force. I'll put our military against the UN's any day as a bringer of peace.
  7. Zaki's Avatar
    Posts
    158 Posts
    Global Posts
    186 Global Posts
    #67  
    I have nothing against Obama heck I am as pro-Obama as you can get, and even I think that this is ridiculous. The "nobel prize" has lost all its glory for me.
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    And the UN peacekeeping forces? Fancy euphemistic name aside_ they are a fighting force. I'll put our military against the UN's any day as a bringer of peace.
    They don't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize either. I'm certain that the Nobel people would never consider any fighting force as candidates.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  9. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    They don't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize either. I'm certain that the Nobel people would never consider any fighting force as candidates.
    http://www.boston.com/globe/search/stories/nobel/1988/1988m.html
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    http://www.boston.com/globe/search/stories/nobel/1988/1988m.html
    Thanks - I stand corrected.

    However, that doesn't change the fact that the goal of the US military is to win conflicts that benefit our strategic / military interests, while the goal of the UN Peacekeeping Force is to:

    monitor and observe peace processes that emerge in post-conflict situations and assist ex-combatants in implementing the peace agreements they have signed. Such assistance comes in many forms, including confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development.
    Overall, they have an impressive number of operations in the name of maintaining peaceful relations. While our military may be the most effective fighting force in the world, it's main purpose isn't spreading of peace.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  11. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Thanks - I stand corrected.

    However, that doesn't change the fact that the goal of the US military is to win conflicts that benefit our strategic / military interests, while the goal of the UN Peacekeeping Force is to:



    Overall, they have an impressive number of operations in the name of maintaining peaceful relations. While our military may be the most effective fighting force in the world, it's main purpose isn't spreading of peace.
    Stated goals and real outcomes are sometimes two very different things. While both sets of forces have had their victories and losses, I'd argue that, stated goals aside, the US forces have done far more to create peace in the last Century.
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Stated goals and real outcomes are sometimes two very different things. While both sets of forces have had their victories and losses, I'd argue that, stated goals aside, the US forces have done far more to create peace in the last Century.
    If the standard is "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses", then I'd simply argure that you're wrong. Our military don't work to reduce standing armies (except our enemies' numbers), they don't build fraternity between nations, and they don't hold peace congresses.

    Their goals are simply different than those the Nobel people judge by, and any other argument is simply pro-American chest thumping. The world doesn't look at our actions with the same "America is always right" stance that you do.
    Last edited by Bujin; 10/11/2009 at 03:01 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  13. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    If the standard is "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses", then I'd simply argure that you're wrong. Our military don't work to reduce standing armies (except our enemies' numbers), they don't build fraternity between nations, and they don't hold peace congresses.

    Their goals are simply different than those the Nobel people judge by, and any other argument is simply pro-American chest thumping. The world doesn't look at our actions with the same "America is always right" stance that you do.
    I like how you tried to box me into a corner there. Any other argument is just to be ignored as jingoism. Nice. Just remember that when you label every opposing argument as jingoistic, racist, fringe or extremist, you reduce what those words really mean.

    So tell me this, what has Al Gore done to promote any of those goals?
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I like how you tried to box me into a corner there. Any other argument is just to be ignored as jingoism. Nice. Just remember that when you label every opposing argument as jingoistic, racist, fringe or extremist, you reduce what those words really mean.
    I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't use any term such as "jingoistic", and certainly didn't bring any other "-isms" into the conversation. I simply think that trying to apply the Nobel Peace Prize standard to an organization who's role is to kill other people's armies to secure our interests is...well....ridiculous. You disagree, and we should leave it at that.

    So tell me this, what has Al Gore done to promote any of those goals?
    Given to him and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change". In other words, to build fraternity between nations.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  15. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't use any term such as "jingoistic", and certainly didn't bring any other "-isms" into the conversation. I simply think that trying to apply the Nobel Peace Prize standard to an organization who's role is to kill other people's armies to secure our interests is...well....ridiculous. You disagree, and we should leave it at that.
    You don't think "pro-American chest thumping" is an example of jingoism?

    Given to him and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change". In other words, to build fraternity between nations.
    I may be wrong, but I don't think the Nobel folks would consider building just any international consensus the same as building a "fraternity between nations". For example, would they have considered the Bush administrations attempts to build international consensus to bring down a murderous dictator? I mean, forget about the results because apparently it's only the attempt that matters.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I may be wrong, but I don't think the Nobel folks would consider building just any international consensus the same as building a "fraternity between nations". For example, would they have considered the Bush administrations attempts to build international consensus to bring down a murderous dictator? I mean, forget about the results because apparently it's only the attempt that matters.
    With no wmd, that was botched. 0 Nobel Peace Prize for Bush...

    Such a murderous army he had... that is why we had such a HIGH causality rate within the first week of entering...

    Yea, he was knocking people off here and there... but I wonder if it would equate to the number of innocent people have died during the war? Hmm...

    In an interview Bush calls Saddam 'the guy who tried to kill my dad.' We have our reason for war....

    And if someone attempted to kill my dad, well... that sob might be hanging from a rope as well. Texas justice, Baby. lol
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Yea, he was knocking people off here and there...
    Yeah, you're right. I could have lived with that. Long as I wasn't one of them.
  18. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #78  
    Thought this little tidbit was interesting:

    OSLO, Oct 9 (Reuters) - Barack Obama is not the first Nobel laureate to win mainly for raising hopes of a better world, rather than achieving peace. But rarely, experts say, does a politician win so soon after gaining power and without a major foreign policy accomplishment under his belt.

    "The Nobel Committee wants the prize to have an impact and it certainly can with Obama, although in many ways it's premature," said Kristian Berg Karpviken, head of the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo (PRIO).

    "I can't see another Nobel as daring as this -- to present someone who is only at the beginning and is yet to have a significant impact," he said.

    The long process of picking the laureate by the Nobel Committee meant that Obama had to be nominated for the prize by the start of February, just days after he was sworn in as U.S. president.

    ...

    Some likened Obama's prize to the 1978 award shared by Egyptian President Mohammad Anwar Al-Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who negotiated peace between their countries which, at the time, provided much hope for security across the Middle East. Such peace still remains elusive.
    Obama's Nobel seen as "daring" bet on future | Reuters

    So, apparently, the Nobel Committee agrees with many here that Obama doesn't deserve this award based on his accomplishments. They would only add the caveat "yet".
    Last edited by groovy; 10/12/2009 at 01:05 AM.
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Stated goals and real outcomes are sometimes two very different things. While both sets of forces have had their victories and losses, I'd argue that, stated goals aside, the US forces have done far more to create peace in the last Century.
    Right. After WW2, let's hear you name one, other than making a med school safe in Grenada.

    We certainly fixed things in Korea. We brought peace in Viet Nam only when we left. We did some stuff in Bosnia only with the help of the UN. We destabilized Iraq and killed thousands of their innocent civilians for daddy's honor.

    Our military judgement has been questionable since the 1940's, with adventures in nation-building, the antithesis of true conservatism. And if Obama doesn't wake up, Afghanistan will join the list of mistakes.
  20. #80  
    When you look at the list of previous winners. There are a few names that come up, that no one in their right mind can possibly disagree with, such as, Mother Teresa. Who could possible disagree with her winning it?
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions